Letters to the Editor -- Dec. 15, 2015

Dear Smoke Signals:

We would like to thank our Tribe and community for everything they have done throughout the years for Peachie Hamm. She was very happy to be home in Grand Ronde. There are so many things she was able to do for the Tribe. There are so many things that the Tribe has done for her; they are too many to count.

The benefits that our members receive are outstanding. She reminded all of her family how blessed we are compared to most other Tribes. Each and every employee, committee member and volunteer for the Tribe makes a difference for our members.

Again, we thank Tribal Council, all of our Tribal community, family and friends for their caring, help and love over the years, and during these last few weeks.

Richard Hamm and all of Peachie’s family

Dear Tribal members:

I found the letter by Chris Mercier in the Dec. 1, 2015, issue of Smoke Signals troublesome.

Chris Mercier is a member of the Tribal Council. His letter was directed at Tribal Elder Rosemary Jameson whose letter appeared in the Nov. 15, 2015, issue of Smoke Signals. It is the first time I have read a letter written in this type of forum by a member of Tribal Council trying to discredit the factual words written openly and honestly by a Tribal member.

In Rosemary Jameson’s Nov. 15, 2015 letter, she urged every individual who has been affected by the parent on the roll requirement to write to Tribal Council and ask them to correct each enrollment problem separately from any other corrections.

Rosemary’s request made sense to me and I appreciated her submitting her letter to Smoke Signals for Tribal members to read. I did not find Rosemary’s letter to be misleading; nor did I find it to contain a number of inaccuracies and omissions. On the other hand, I found Chris Mercier's Dec. 1, 2015, letter to be all of those.

For some time now, Chris Mercier has been referring to the parent on the roll requirement as a bundled requirement. Yet when the requirement was added as part of the 1999 amendment, the requirement was listed as part of one sentence and reads as follows: “(c) who possess at least one-sixteenth (1/16) degree Grand Ronde blood quantum and were born to a parent who was a member of the Tribe at the time of the applicant's birth and who, unless deceased, is a member of the Grand Ronde Tribe at the time the applicant files an application for enrollment; have filed an application for enrollment according to procedures established pursuant to Section 3 of this Article, and have been accepted as members in accordance with the Tribal ordinance adopted under Section 3 of this Article.”

The wording on the July 2015 approved ATP was as follows: "Authorize the Tribal Attorney’s Office to prepare a committee sheet, draft resolution and other documents necessary to move forward an amendment to the Tribal Constitution (enrollment requirements) to remove the requirement that an applicant for membership have a parent who is or was a member of the Tribe at the time or the applicant's birth and, if living, at the time 
of application."

It appears to me that it was the intent of all of the Tribal Council members who signed the ATP to treat the removal of the parent requirement as one issue. Those Tribal Council members who signed were Jack Giffen Jr., Toby McClary, Jon A. George, Tonya Gleason, Cheryle Kennedy and Ed Pearsall.

It seems to me that Chris Mercier is trying to confuse the issue in order to further his own agenda, which is to propose wording to change the current definition of Grand Ronde blood through a constitutional amendment election so it is no longer tied to the Grand Ronde Restoration Act Roll. That is why I think Chris is trying to discourage, in a sense, Tribal members from applying for the Restoration Roll Correction Application if they do not have an ancestor on the Restoration Roll. Yet the application has been approved by Tribal Council and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and is available through the Member Services Department or Enrollment Office.

I encourage all Tribal members to seek the truth through every avenue available in regards to what is going on within our Tribal Council and what is being proposed and what isn't being proposed.

Leroy Good

Roll #892

Dear Tribal members:

I wrote a letter that appeared on page 2 of the Nov. 15, 2015, issue of Smoke Signals. That letter basically urged Tribal members affected by the parent on the roll requirement to contact Tribal Council, asking them to address this enrollment issue as a separate ballot proposal from any others.

Further, I urged Tribal members to view the Oct. 22, 2015, video of the special Tribal Council meeting where Chris Mercier, Cheryle A. Kennedy, Jon A. George, Denise Harvey and Brenda Tuomi stopped the removal of the parent on the roll proposal from its final Tribal Council approval. 

Since that time, Chris Mercier continues to muddy the waters by using the following tactics in his Smoke Signals letter of Dec. 1, 2015:

•        Chris calls my factual, accurate letter misleading, inaccurate and having omissions when I clearly provided actual data.
•        Chris continues to debate if the parent on the roll is one requirement or two. It is clearly shown as one proposal, not two, on the ATP sheet that was signed by the majority of Tribal Council and handed out at the July 29, 2015, Tribal Council meeting.
•        Chris resorts to a letter I wrote to Smoke Signals in 2011 when our Tribe proposed the last enrollment bundle. Chris asks if I remember what I said and did I change my mind. My response is: Yes, I remember, and No, I did not change my mind. Chris then puts words into my mouth saying: “She personally identified these two requirements as being distinct and deserving to be separated out for different votes.” Chris, I did not say that! Anyone can look up in the archives on our Tribal website and see who is misleading and inaccurate here. I pointed out seven changes that were in the proposed enrollment bundle of 2011. My letter was one of 20 that issue - many of them asking for no more bundles.
•        Chris is sorry I mentioned the Correction to the Restoration Roll Form for those who need help with not having an ancestor on the Restoration Roll. He said I was giving “false hope.” According to the videos of Tribal Council meetings, this form and process was approved by both Tribal Council and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is my understanding that at least 13 individuals have already been approved through Tribal Council resolution. Therefore, it is very discouraging that a current Tribal Council member actually openly advocates against this process.
•        It appears to me that Chris Mercier, Cheryle A. Kennedy, Denise Harvey, Jon A. George and Brenda Tuomi are the ones providing the false hope. They verbally state they want to help with the enrollment problems, yet their written signatures and votes are against helping those with the majority of the enrollment problems: parent on the roll.

In the end, what really matters is what Tribal members say. The best chance for the families who need the parent on the roll requirement removed is if it is a separate ballot proposal.  Remember that as a separate proposal in 2008, it failed by only 68 votes.

I urge any family who needs this correction to write to tribalcouncil@grandronde.org and ask for this and all enrollment proposals to be voted on separately – no bundles. In my opinion, any enrollment bundle will fail as it did in 2011. Members do not appreciate being forced into saying “yes” to items we do not want in order to achieve the ones we do. Let each item pass or fail on its own merit.

Rosemary Jameson

Roll #883